Skepticism

EVENTS

I’m all for concentrating the stupid in one place

Do you remember Terry Hurlbut? Of course not. He’s another boring creationist whose schtick is to claim that creationists really are scientists — after all, Isaac Newton was a creationist. He also maintains something called the “Creationist Hall of Fame” which lists a lot of legitimate pre-Darwin thinkers and 20th century crackpots. His “Hall of Fame” is just a website, but he dreams big: he wants to put up a real building with…what? I don’t know. Printouts of his articles?

Anyway, the semi-interesting thing he wants to do is build that edifice to idiocy somewhere near the Creation “Museum”. It’s a legitimate business plan, I think; the concentration of deluded fools spikes in the vicinity of Answers in Genesis, and that’s his market. AiG has nothing to do with it, though — I wonder if they’d resent someone tapping into their pool of suckers? Or if they’d see it as an addition to their vortex of stupid? It depends on Hurlbut’s ideological purity, I suppose.

I don’t know why you didn’t reply to my #471. It would be very simple for you to do, if you had anything worthwhile to say.

Instead, you just give us more incoherent, useless bluster about complicated subjects you know next to nothing about. What’s the point of getting your ass handed to you over and over? What do you think you could accomplish this way, other than demonstrate how intellectually and morally bankrupt creationists can be? I’m entirely serious here: you are wasting years of your life tilting at windmills and don’t seem to realize it. If I’m wrong and it’s not a waste, then why are you doing it?

If you really do understand something we don’t, that there is some general problem with evolutionary biology (not merely a particular finding of it), wouldn’t you be able to you explain what you think is wrong with this?

Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable. Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.

Would you dispute any of the facts? Would you say there is something wrong with some part of the reasoning? Would you say the problem is something else that isn’t mentioned here? Would you stick your fingers in your ears and say “LALALALALALA I can’t hear you, therefore Jesus”? What would you say?

Still not one shred of scientific links from txpiper. Without links to real science, his OPINION and QUOTES are nothing but noise from him, changing nothing as he has no AUTHORITY. Just another liar and bullshitter.

If txpiper had a real idea, he would forget evolution and concentrate on his idea. Disproving evolution doesn’t prove his idea. They are totally separate considerations. But txpiper is too stupid and too arrogant to understand this basic concept.

Still no evidence for txpipers imaginary creator and his babble being inerrant. Still nothing but lies, bullshit, and dishonesty all the way down. Nothing but noise from a creobot who can’t prove a dammn thing scientifically, and can’t shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity would do. Nothing but noise, lies and bullshit.

The same thing happening slowly enough is not selected against. Aging after you’ve successfully reproduced doesn’t make a difference.

This is a good example of someone being unhappy because mutations and helpful fairies were left out of the picture, and formulating “another” idea to fit the facts into evolutionary theory.

Don’t you see it’s completely fairy-free?

If he is correct, his theory is an expose of the actual nature of mutations.

Poor texpip, too stupid to conceive of the idea that different mutations might have different effects. (Let alone the same mutations having different effects under different circumstances.) *patting on poor texpip’s head*

“normal” is a good word to notice

What makes it normal?

Stabilizing selection does.

“normal” bugs you, doesn’t it?

No. It bugs you, and therefore you assume it bugs everyone.

It bugs you so much that you feel forced to resort to the claim that it’s a literal miracle. Remember that “designed norm” you brought up yesterday, colander-for-brains?

This is, of course, antagonistic to your sappy ideas about environment being either receptive or hostile to mutations.

Heh. If we could reproduce fast enough, we wouldn’t call it “progeria” when an 8-year-old looked obviously senesced. We don’t call it “progeria” when a… wait, rats don’t even live for 8 years. They can afford much sloppier DNA repair than we can; by “afford” I mean “it’s not selected against”.

theory of a single gene adversely affecting multiple traits

For fuck’s sake. Partially inhibit the expression of one gene (I think it was BMP-4) in the mouth of a mouse embryo at the right time, and it’ll grow cheek teeth that are blunt instead of multi-ridged. Overexpress the same gene instead, and the mouse will grow extra cheek teeth and extra ridges on the usual cheek teeth.

There is no way in hell one person with a computer can approximate genetic information with a computer simulation.

What rot. Every nucleotide is two bits of information. There are four different nucleotides – A, C, G, T –, so you need two bits to represent them: 00, 01, 10, 11. You can’t just “approximate” genetic information, you can represent it precisely in a computer!

the fact that PE requires every assumed rule about evolution is off the table so things can happen fast, fast, fast

A widespread misunderstanding. “Fast” still means “tens of thousands of years, during which the environment changes, so that stabilizing selection is replaced with directional selection”. If selection were always directional and never stabilizing, evolution would always be as fast as it is during “punctuations”. Punk eek doesn’t explain the “punctuations”, because those are already explained; it explains the apparent stasis!

And now I want to take your head and push it into this link. That article is easy to read, and it has very informative pictures. I’m sure I’ve shown it to you 10 times already.

You keep emphasizing, and I can easily agree, that you have at least 100 new mutations that your parents didn’t have. So freakin what? Are you advantaged? Are you going places and developing new features?

Yes, I’m resistant to caffeine. I can drink tea at any time in the day just for the taste, and don’t need to worry about insomnia; and I never need to drink anything as disgusting as coffee.

As far as I can tell, this requires two mutations: one in the gene for the phosphodiesterase that turns cAMP into AMP, and another in the gene for acetylcholinesterase.

More easily testably, I have unusually long forearms. I’m as different from most people alive today as they’re from Neandertalers. On the one hand, that makes me weaker in some respects (my hands are farther away from my… bicepses? Bicipites? …biceps muscles than usual); on the other, it gives me extra reach – I have no trouble scratching any place on my back, or putting shower gel there (on the rare occasions that I need it).

…Hey, look! A mutation with two effects, one detrimental and one beneficial! Who’d’a’ thunk.

Those longer forearms would also make some kinds of climbing easier. In particular, they’d help with sweeping and swiping movements; that doesn’t matter for me, but it matters for most birds.

Everyone else in my family has normal forearms; everyone else in my family responds to caffeine, except perhaps my brother who drinks no coffee and little tea – I’ll have to ask him next time I talk to him.

You don’t need to respond. Your silence will say all that needs to be said. *holds up envelope ala the great carnac* You will not refute anything as your OPINION, being unscientific, can’t refute anything. No peer reviewed scientific literature will be used properly to refute anything, as quote mining isn’t evidence. No evidence for your imaginary creator and mythical/fictional babble will be presented. Absolutely required for your religious idea to be taken serious. At the end you will do nothing but give testament. Testament for your imaginary deity, making the whole exercise meaningless.

Typical of the Authoritarian mindset lurkers, it thinks it is still in the ball game. It lost before it started posting six years ago. It just can’t acknowledge the TRUTH.

You keep emphasizing, and I can easily agree, that you have at least 100 new mutations that your parents didn’t have. So freakin what?

After doubling and tripling down on the sublime perfection of the replication machinery and how mutations just CAN’T happen, the texpip is finally forced to admit that they do, that they are in fact very frequent.

But of course now it tries to pretend that it doesn’t matter.

You know, the freakin what part has been explained in exquisite detail to the texpip threads and threads and threads ago.

particularly in view of the fact that PE requires every assumed rule about evolution is off the table

Nope. Punctuated equilibrium completely obeys the rules of evolution down to the last. This has already been explained to the texpip long ago and many times over. As usual the dishonest pathetic liar is, again, lying.

Pulmonary embolism, on the other hand…. no scratch that, those PEs obey the rules of evolution too.

so things can happen fast, fast, fast.

Nope. The so-called “fast” changes in punctuated equilibrium theory take place in TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (as opposed to millions, in gradualism scenarios).

This of course has already been explained to the texpip long ago and many times over.

As usual, the pathetic liar is trying to ignore all that, AGAIN.

(The ENTIRETY of the texpip’s holy book fits into a single blip of punctuated equilibrium.)

PE is just a sorry apology for the fossil record not supporting the theory.

Nope. Punctuated equilibrium is EXACTLY what evolutionary theory predicts the fossil record should look like, given the physical laws concerning how taphonomy works.

Would you like me to quote Gould on that point?

Again?

Like the texpip tried the last time the Gish Hamster Wheel swung that way? Or the time before that?

Or all those other times the texpip was thoroughly and immediately destroyed by all the people here who actually understand what Gould actually was saying?

Sure, go head.

Demonstrate once more the texpip’s pitiful appeals to the fallacy of authority (again).

Of course the texpip taking issue with punctuated equilibrium really takes the cake.

It tries (and fails) to claim it as an argument against evolutionary theory, all the while IGNORING the fact that its own “alternative” absolutely REQUIRES the most utterly ridiculous punctuated equilibria of all, wherein the entire biosphere poofed into existence in the span of a few days.

AND it also ignores the fact that its “alternative” to evolutionary theory absolutely allows for JUST ONE (not even two, thanks to the ark) punk eek event.

Notice how the texpip completely misses the point about punctuated equilibrium while trying to evade properly answering the citations (which, since the texpip still hasn’t answered it, I’ll post again)

The simulation produced a punctuated equilibrium pattern on its own. No one attempted or tried to program that in. The basic parameters of evolutionary theory, once put into the simulation, automatically caused a punctuated equilibrium pattern to EMERGE.

Thus the simulation not only demonstrates how the mechanics of evolutionary theory (random mutation and natural selection) INCREASE information over time, it produces the testable hypothesis that biological evolution in real life to produce increases in information (ie, such as morphological change) in a punctuated equilibrium pattern.

And when we look at the fossil record, what do we see? A pattern of punctuated equilibria.

Thus, once again, we see evolutionary theory producing a testable hypothesis that is tested and found to be correct.

And of course, the complete failure of the texpip to notice this point, and the angle with which it tried to wedge in punk eek into its ill-thought attack on evolutionary theory and the citation in question pretty conclusively demonstrates that the texpip, as expected, didn’t bother to read the citation at all.

So, still running away, coward that it is, from the evidence that completely destroys all its arguments.

It was an example of evolutionary theory testing itself, and self-correcting, as all good scientific theories do.

And the result of that debate? We EXPANDED our knowledge of how the real world works. We now know that BOTH punk eek and gradualism are partially correct, and the BOTH occur, depending on circumstance. We’ve also learned the broader MECHANISMS that produce the separate patterns of punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. And we’ve also discovered that, at the root, both are manifestations of the same thing, the same basic processes of evolutionary theory and that in many instances the differences in the patterns we see are due to the scale at which we observe them.

The texpip’s “alternative” to evolutionary theory, has done, and can do, no such thing. It does not generate competing testable hypotheses which, in the testing of them, advance our knowledge. It does not self-correct.

In the meantime, let’s gallop back to the cave fish with this recent article. Separated by some 60 million supposed years, and some 3700 Gondwanaland miles, two closely-related Gobies are blind because their ancient ancestor went blind. But 60 million years worth of powerful selection pressure, very little else happened. Or, to suit the mutation-adoring tastes here, they were blinded by random replication errors in a fabulously identical convergent evolution event. You can pick your own absurdly unfeasible poison.

after what is it now? 2 years? 3? has texpip EVER said anything different than what it came in here with?

has ANYTHING anyone has ever posted been processed by pip the day AFTER it was posted?

it should be obvious by now that you are either dealing with someone who is trolling you for lulz, or someone with severe cognitive impairment who is simply unable to process the information you are giving.

10 times is average for the number of refutations of any specific piece of Pip’s nonsense.

If directly asked, I’m sure pip will however say that no refutations of his ideas have ever been put forward.

so… seriously… can you NOT see there is no point?

he’s either lying or insane.

those are the only two options.

that being the case, you will not ever reach him by posting evidentiary, rational, argument.

if he’s lying, he must really enjoy pulling your chain for all this time.

if not, instead of correcting him, the only thing people should be posting are links to places where he can search for a local therapist.

In the meantime, let’s gallop back to the cave fish with this recent article. Separated by some 60 million supposed years, and some 3700 Gondwanaland miles, two closely-related Gobies are blind because their ancient ancestor went blind. But 60 million years worth of powerful selection pressure, very little else happened. Or, to suit the mutation-adoring tastes here, they were blinded by random replication errors in a fabulously identical convergent evolution event. You can pick your own absurdly unfeasible poison.

Yes, let’s. Let’s see how you explain two (or more) species of freshwater cave fish on separate land masses after the Flood.

Freshwater fish, remember, so they could not possibly have survived the flood itself which was contaminated by saline water from our planet’s already-existing salty oceans.

Okay then, let’s hypothesize that non-existent Noah carried freshwater aquaria with gobies etc aboard the non-existent ark. (But note, it would have been hundreds of aquaria, since even just taking a pair from each fish family, not from each genus, much less from each species, entails hundreds of “created kinds” which must be saved from the flood.)

Separate land masses, remember, so those fish could not possibly have dispersed themselves from the ark’s resting place on the slopes of Ararat to their separate cave locales. Blind cave fishes, remember, so they absolutely can’t navigate/survive any open stream. Even though some other fishes might at least hypothetically have been carried safely by the ark, then dispersed themselves downstream to their post-flood habitats, not these cave fish.

Okay, then, let’s hypothesize … well, shit, I dunno, might as well hypothesize magic. God magically took care of the fish in heaven while the flood destroyed all the other animals on Earth. And then god magically sent the fish to their new homes in the caves (which magically had not been filled with salty silt while they were at the bottom of the flood, or which magically were emptied of salty silt when god remembered that the cave gobies were going to need to live there when he released them from heaven.

Yeah, let’s gallop back to those cave fish. I’m dying to hear YOUR explanation for their current existence.

Huh. txpiper, why do you apologize for a delay when you return the same day?

Equating half the US population with mutants, I see.

As opposed to all of the world population. Not a single cell alive today is identical to the first organism.

In the meantime, let’s gallop back to the cave fish with this recent article.

In other words, let’s change the topic again!

Separated by some 60 million supposed years, and some 3700 Gondwanaland miles, two closely-related Gobies are blind because their ancient ancestor went blind.

It’s not “two gobies”, it’s two whole groups of goby species, as the paper mentions many, many times explicitly.

But 60 million years worth of powerful selection pressure, very little else happened.

…What in the fuck do you mean by “very little else happened”?

Cave systems are, of course, extremely stable environments; strong stabilizing selection has to be expected. Still, several distinguishable species exist both in Madagascar and in Australia, and the two groups are easy enough to distinguish from each other.

As far as I can tell, it’s all just about plausible. I do wonder, though, if the two groups (the Malagasy Typhleotris and the Australian Milyeringa) are eyeless in the same way; unfortunately, only development biology can answer this, and nobody has yet tried to breed any T. or M. species in a lab; indeed, “larvae of Typhleotris have not been observed”, the paper says.

so… seriously… can you NOT see there is no point?

he’s either lying or insane.

those are the only two options.

He has heavy cases of Dunning/Kruger and argument from personal incredulity. But I think we’re progressing: he has admitted that mutations are common and that Tyre has been found again.

Yes, let’s. Let’s see how you explain two (or more) species of freshwater cave fish on separate land masses after the Flood.

Yeah. Whoever came up with the flood myths completely forgot about the fish.

Separated by some 60 million supposed years, and some 3700 Gondwanaland miles, two closely-related Gobies are blind because their ancient ancestor went blind.

It’s not “two gobies”, it’s two whole groups of goby species, as the paper mentions many, many times explicitly.

But 60 million years worth of powerful selection pressure, very little else happened.

…What in the fuck do you mean by “very little else happened”?

Cave systems are, of course, extremely stable environments; strong stabilizing selection has to be expected. Still, several distinguishable species exist both in Madagascar and in Australia, and the two groups are easy enough to distinguish from each other.

As far as I can tell, it’s all just about plausible. I do wonder, though, if the two groups (the Malagasy Typhleotris and the Australian Milyeringa) are eyeless in the same way; unfortunately, only development biology can answer this, and nobody has yet tried to breed any T. or M. species in a lab; indeed, “larvae of Typhleotris have not been observed”, the paper says.

so… seriously… can you NOT see there is no point?

he’s either lying or insane.

those are the only two options.

He has heavy cases of Dunning/Kruger and argument from personal incredulity. But I think we’re progressing: he has admitted that mutations are common and that Tyre has been found again.

Yes, let’s. Let’s see how you explain two (or more) species of freshwater cave fish on separate land masses after the Flood.

Yeah. Whoever came up with the flood myths completely forgot about the fish.

Science, with a million or so scientific papers backing up evolution both directly and indirect, a GAZILLION; txpiper with nothing but personal opinion and hyperskepticism toward science, an unevidenced hence imaginary creator, and a holy book that can’t be shown to be inerrant, ZERO.

Funny how txpiper just can’t acknowledge the TRUTH. It is wrong. Talk about being both stupid and arrogant.

Notice also how when the texpip brings up the new topic, it LIES about.

1. Those fish are NOT “almost the same”. They have diverged into entirely separate genera at the least, with multiple species in each group. They have undergone an entire adaptive radiation. The species are visually and obviously distinct from each other. They are more different morphologically from one another than humans are from baboons.

2. No one is saying that the common ancestor was certain to be already blind. It is only hypothesized that the common ancestor lived in caves. The common ancestor being blind is a TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS that is open for future investigation.

3. The texpip completely ignores the fact that, in its “alternative” to evolutionary theory, the very existence of these cave fish groups where they are found today is IMPOSSIBLE.

Notice how the texpip will take one example of evolutionary change, dismiss it as “virtually the same in all respects” and use it as an argument against evolutionary theory.

It then turns around and uses another example more roughly THE SAME DEGREE of change and claim that this is a vast and phenomenally “complex” amount of change which just simply can’t be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms.

Huh. One of my comments evaporated. Oh, well, everyone else covered it better, except for noticing that the article txpiper linked to to say that fish hadn’t changed, actually said that one of the fish had developed pigment.

Tex, I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish here, but it ain’t working. Unless you are trying to convince me that all creationists are deranged—I always knew they were wrong, but you are bringing the crazy so bad that it’s spilling out on your friends. Really, you need to quit.

Speaking of your friends, Tex, who are they? I mean, the scientific community encompasses millions of people and millions of diverse fields, everything from cave-fish-ologists to theoretical astrophysicists. The scientific consensus is that the earth is of a certain age, life evolved, and atoms work in certain ways, and that all those are inter-related and mutually sound.

In science, there aren’t the snarly disagreements that mark religions—look at Pluto, for instance, where it was simply a matter of a name, and folks worked things out. In Creation “Science”, they can’t even decide how old this planet is—there’s YECs and all. Frak, you can’t even decide how many animals were on the ark. And you can’t separate your “science” from religion and superstition.

So, Tex, what group do you belong to, how many people are in it, and what are its tenets, evidences and theories? Or are you just free-styling around disagreeing with reality for some twisted satisfaction you get from being the rogue wizard of whatever the fuck you want?

…can I take it you believe that no animal ever has kids that are smarter, stronger, faster, more colorful, sing louder, digest more efficiently, or ever do anything better than they do due to genetic change?
I ask because that is exactly and precisely what you have to believe to keep insisting that all mutations are deleterious.

Unless, of course, you believe something else is at work here, which apparently you don’t, because if you did, you would have told us about it.

In science, there aren’t the snarly disagreements that mark religions—look at Pluto, for instance, where it was simply a matter of a name, and folks worked things out.

That wasn’t a matter of science, it was a matter of nomenclature.

But the point stands: in science, as well as in other fields where there are objective ways of finding out if an idea is wrong, there aren’t the snarly disagreements that mark religions. “There are no sects in geometry” (Voltaire).

The disagreement about Pluto’s classification is still fairly snarly. But no one is going to get killed or shunned or exiled over it. No careers will be destroyed. And in the process of debating this, we stand to learn a great deal more about Pluto in particular and planets in general.

Oh, and while the texpip faps, science marches on. Lenski’s team has identified the specific mutations that produced the ability to survive on citrate instead of glucose in the presence of oxygen. Guess what? They are duplication mutations.

First (actually second)* was a duplication of a citrate transporter where the duplicated gene randomly landed beside a promoter that turns on in the presence of oxygen. (The original is beside a promoter that only turns on in the absence of oxygen)

Second, (third) the newly duplicated gene and its new oxygen promoter is duplicated again multiple times, allowing for rapid citrate absorption, enough for the bacterium to live on it.

Note that in most environments BOTH these mutations are harmful. The first results in the import of citrate when it isn’t needed and is a waste of resources to manufacture the transporter. The second increases total DNA length and slows down replication. Both are ruthlessly selected against in most wild populations of E. coli. But in the environment of the Lenski experiment, they are beneficial.

*and even before this duplication, a series of individually neutral mutations occurred that needed to be already present before either duplication could be beneficial. The Lenski team has identified them but do not yet know exactly what they do.

NOva I think had a great analogy for how tiny changes in genetics cause big effects. Cooking. DNA is more of a recipe than a blueprint anyway. You can take the same ingredients and with slight changes get radically different outcomes.

The most intriguing part of the story, however, is the first– Chapter One: Setting the Stage.
When Lenski and Blount first began to study the citrate eaters, they wondered what would happen if they wound back the evolutionary tape and let the bacteria re-evolve. Would the citrate feeding evolve again?
Blount thawed out ancestors from various moments in the history of the bacteria and started putting them through the same evolutionary experiment again. In some trials, the bacteria did indeed evolve into citrate eaters–but only if they came from after generation 20,000. This discovery suggested only after 20,000 generations were the bacteria prepared to evolve into citrate eaters. They must have already acquired other mutations that set the stage.
To test this idea, Blount and his colleagues thawed out some of the “prepared” bacteria: late-generation E. coli that had not yet gained mutations to citT. They created a miniature ring of DNA loaded with many copies of CitT and the oxygen-sensitive switch, and inserted it into the prepared bacteria. As they predicted, the bacteria now could suddenly feast magnificently on citrate.
But if Blount and his colleagues inserted the DNA ring into the original ancestor of the line, it grew poorly on citrate. That failure suggested that the early-generation bacteria were not ready to receive this evolutionary gift.

Irreducible complexity, evolved right before our very eyes!

I can’t think of any superlatives large enough to praise Lenski , Blount, and their other unnamed students.

God damn anyone who doesn’t “believe” in evolution now that this research has been done.

Oh, and while the texpip faps, science marches on. Lenski’s team has identified the specific mutations that produced the ability to survive on citrate instead of glucose in the presence of oxygen. Guess what? They are duplication mutations.

*gleeful cackling*

*and even before this duplication, a series of individually neutral mutations occurred that needed to be already present before either duplication could be beneficial. The Lenski team has identified them but do not yet know exactly what they do.

~:-| Then how do they know they’re neutral?

a miniature ring of DNA loaded with many copies of CitT and the oxygen-sensitive switch

A plasmid! :-)

I mention this because the texpip has used that word but probably doesn’t know what it means.

”Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable. Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.”

I understand that the standard narrative is a satisfactory explanation for most people. To me, it is overstated and assumptive. It doesn’t account for the “trait differences” that would make “progeny…that were better adapted to survive and reproduce”. While natural selection preserves traits, it does not create any, nor is it a “cause of adaptation”. For actual alterations, the whole scenario still depends on random replication errors every minute step of the way.

Do you feel that the summary you posted adequately explains everything from original gene formation to the transition from prokaryotes to humans?

===

David,

”A widespread misunderstanding. “Fast” still means “tens of thousands of years, during which the environment changes, so that stabilizing selection is replaced with directional selection”

I think what is widespread is the fantasy about natural selection having different personalities.

Environmental changes just amount to suitable food sources and conditions, or the lack of those. The idea of environmental changes causing selection to shift gears into being directional, is entirely doubtable. This, from the “Speciation in the fossil record” paper you linked to, notes that any supposed evolution that might occur, could just be temporal:

”Stasis was the normal state of affairs, but rapid morphological shifts took place three times, two of which correspond to substantial lake-level rises. This was interpreted as evidence for punctuated speciation events and that rapid environmental changes had caused major evolutionary change. The new species were apparently short lived, because the parental stock had survived in neighbouring unstressed lakes, and returned to colonize Lake Turkana after the lake-level changes had taken place.

However, these conclusions were controversial. Critics argued that the supposed speciation events were merely short-term ecophenotypic responses to particular environmental stresses; once the stress was removed, the shell morphologies reverted to normal. Hence, it was suggested that the studies had failed to detect any speciation events. Certainly, such ecophenotypic effects can occur among molluscs. For example, when a limpet larva settles, its shell starts to form, but the ultimate shape depends on where it ends up on the shore. If the limpet is low on the shore, the shell is low and broad, to resist wave battering. If it is high on the shore, the shell becomes high and pointed, to allow for water storage in the apex. Despite the very different adult shell morphologies, no genetic change, or therefore evolution, has occurred.

Despite this debate, the Lake Turkana studies did demonstrate the ubiquity of stasis. Here were 19 mollusc lineages persisting through 4 My of fluctuating and stressful conditions, without detectable phenotypic change.”
.
It appears that stasis is much more ubiquitous than either the specialty selection modes, or the pool of available mutations you often refer to.
.”Larger-scale studies from the 1980s and 1990s sometimes involved tens of thousands of assessed specimens, very fine-scale stratigraphies and subtle attempts to determine the nature of the species involved. Even in these massive exercises in data documentation, the objection could be raised that apparent speciation events might sometimes be simply ECOPHENOTYPIC rather than the result of evolutionary change.

An analysis of the results of 58 studies on speciation patterns in the fossil record, published between 1972 and 1995, demonstrates the widespread occurrence of stasis in the fossil record. Organisms ranged from radiolaria and foraminifera to ammonites and mammals, and stratigraphic ages ranged from the Cambrian to the Neogene, with the majority concentrating in the Neogene, the past 25 million years (My) of the history of the earth. Of the 58 studies, 41 (71%) showed stasis, associated either with anagenesis (15 cases; 37%) or with punctuated patterns (26 cases; 63%). It therefore seems clear that stasis is common and had not been predicted from modern genetic studies.”

This was also interesting:

”The fossil record of small mammals shows a wide variety of patterns of evolution. However, detailed records of gradual speciation events do not exist, suggesting that ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION might be the norm. With respect to morphological evolution, the prevalent theme is a complex mosaic pattern with different features evolving at very different rates in different species, and morphological evolution is not necessarily related to speciation.”

Dogs would well illustrate that fact that changes in morphology have nothing to do with speciation. This paper serves to highlight the fact that what is actually observable is just variation and adaptation.

===

Ing,

”Then why is Progeria so rare?”

I don’t know, other than the fact that it is not normal. It is an interesting phenomenon though. It is hard to observe the effects and not conclude that aging involves intentional self-destruct mechanisms.

===

Menyambal,

”the article txpiper linked to to say that fish hadn’t changed, actually said that one of the fish had developed pigment”

Yeah, I saw that. I would think that it was not developing though, just being re-expressed. That sortof makes you wonder what natural selection had in mind. Maybe it couldn’t see what it was doing in the dark.

===

Anri,

”can I take it you believe that no animal ever has kids that are smarter, stronger, faster, more colorful, sing louder, digest more efficiently…due to genetic change?”

Of course that happens. The reverse happens as well, perhaps more often. In humans, this is what we should expect, as we are accumulating 100-200 mutations with every generation.

”I ask because that is exactly and precisely what you have to believe to keep insisting that all mutations are deleterious.”

No, I don’t think they are all deleterious. It is well-known that most are neutral, and that there is a modest tolerance for substitutions in proteins.

”you believe something else is at work here”

Of course I do. I’m a creationist. As I’ve stated before, you and I view DNA differently. I think it originated perfect and generally, is slowly degenerating. I recognize that mutations, when they have an observable effect, are often harmful. I think DNA has an enormous capacity for variation and adaptation, which means that some events that are called mutations, are not accidental at all.

You think DNA started from essentially nothing, and developed by way of random events into something extremely complicated. You view all mutations as errors that might have occasionally have a neutral or beneficial result. And you believe that countless numbers of these accumulating errors have resulted in every last developmental detail, of every single bio-feature, in every single extinct and extant plant and animal species.

If your scenario pleases you, then join the chorus and celebrate that E Coli has regained the ability to eat citrate after 31,000 generations.

It doesn’t account for the “trait differences” that would make “progeny…that were better adapted to survive and reproduce”.

Yes, it does. You even quotes the bits that point to accounting for different traits. The simple fact of having different traits would automatically lead to the conclusion that some are better adapted for survival in a particular environment and some are less well adapted. That is the meaning of the word “different.”

While natural selection preserves traits, it does not create any, nor is it a “cause of adaptation”.

Natural selection does not create new traits. Mutations do, though. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “cause of adaption”–adaptation is the mechanism that makes natural selection be a phenomenon. Different traits, environments, different levels of adaptiveness. Adaptivity? Whatever, you get the idea.

For actual alterations, the whole scenario still depends on random replication errors every minute step of the way.

Yes it does, and this is well accounted for.

Do you feel that the summary you posted adequately explains everything from original gene formation to the transition from prokaryotes to humans?

Yes. Even if it didn’t, so what? It’s the explanation best supported by the available evidence. Don’t like it? Get out there and get some actual evidence.

Environmental changes just amount to suitable food sources and conditions, or the lack of those. The idea of environmental changes causing selection to shift gears into being directional, is entirely doubtable.

All things, grasshopper, are doubtable. The question is, what is the foundation for your doubts? You appear to have none.

This, from the “Speciation in the fossil record” paper you linked to, notes that any supposed evolution that might occur, could just be temporal:

What does it mean, to have evolution “just be temporal”? That evolution may occur even when environmental conditions are quite stable? This is well accounted for, and not a challenge to evolutionary theory at all. Pardon me if I can’t parse the meaning of the phrase, I know I’m just jumping in here, but that appears to be what you mean, based on the text you quote below.

”Stasis was the normal state of affairs, but rapid morphological shifts took place three times, two of which correspond to substantial lake-level rises. This was interpreted as evidence for punctuated speciation events and that rapid environmental changes had caused major evolutionary change. The new species were apparently short lived, because the parental stock had survived in neighbouring unstressed lakes, and returned to colonize Lake Turkana after the lake-level changes had taken place.

However, these conclusions were controversial. Critics argued that the supposed speciation events were merely short-term ecophenotypic responses to particular environmental stresses; once the stress was removed, the shell morphologies reverted to normal. Hence, it was suggested that the studies had failed to detect any speciation events. Certainly, such ecophenotypic effects can occur among molluscs. For example, when a limpet larva settles, its shell starts to form, but the ultimate shape depends on where it ends up on the shore. If the limpet is low on the shore, the shell is low and broad, to resist wave battering. If it is high on the shore, the shell becomes high and pointed, to allow for water storage in the apex. Despite the very different adult shell morphologies, no genetic change, or therefore evolution, has occurred.

Despite this debate, the Lake Turkana studies did demonstrate the ubiquity of stasis. Here were 19 mollusc lineages persisting through 4 My of fluctuating and stressful conditions, without detectable phenotypic change.”

Fascinating. A debate over whether speciation occurred or not in one specific circumstance. However, that speciation occurs is well established.

It appears that stasis is much more ubiquitous than either the specialty selection modes, or the pool of available mutations you often refer to.

Can there be degrees of ubiquity? The word means “turning up everywhere’; if a thing is not everywhere then it can’t be ubiquitous, but is merely common. Anyway, I’ll take your meaning: stasis is extremely common compared to situations where the environment is changing rapidly. This is also not a challenge to evolutionary theory; “specialty selection modes” (whatever you mean by that–I presume times of rapid environmental change) need not be common to be a driver of evolution. The pool of available mutations need not be huge to have an impact on the genetic profile of a population.

”Larger-scale studies from the 1980s and 1990s sometimes involved tens of thousands of assessed specimens, very fine-scale stratigraphies and subtle attempts to determine the nature of the species involved. Even in these massive exercises in data documentation, the objection could be raised that apparent speciation events might sometimes be simply ECOPHENOTYPIC rather than the result of evolutionary change.

“Might sometimes” != always. If you are positing that what we think is evolution is really just morphological changes then you need to propose a new theory that accounts for the diversity of life.

An analysis of the results of 58 studies on speciation patterns in the fossil record, published between 1972 and 1995, demonstrates the widespread occurrence of stasis in the fossil record. Organisms ranged from radiolaria and foraminifera to ammonites and mammals, and stratigraphic ages ranged from the Cambrian to the Neogene, with the majority concentrating in the Neogene, the past 25 million years (My) of the history of the earth. Of the 58 studies, 41 (71%) showed stasis, associated either with anagenesis (15 cases; 37%) or with punctuated patterns (26 cases; 63%). It therefore seems clear that stasis is common and had not been predicted from modern genetic studies.”

Yup, scientists debating amongst themselves and revising theories upon the discovery of new data. Shocking!

This was also interesting:

”The fossil record of small mammals shows a wide variety of patterns of evolution. However, detailed records of gradual speciation events do not exist, suggesting that ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION might be the norm. With respect to morphological evolution, the prevalent theme is a complex mosaic pattern with different features evolving at very different rates in different species, and morphological evolution is not necessarily related to speciation.”

Dogs would well illustrate that fact that changes in morphology have nothing to do with speciation. This paper serves to highlight the fact that what is actually observable is just variation and adaptation.

No, actually, the paper does not highlight that. Simply based on what you quoted, the paper is highlighting that one type of speciation–allopatric speciation–is more common than speciation based on changes in morphology within one geographically united population, contrary to previous understandings. So, apparently you can’t read what you yourself are quoting.

And then of course there is the fact that variation and adaptation are mechanisms by which evolution happens.

“Variation and adaptation” + time = evolution.

So I guess you enjoy pretending to be an idiot or something? Have fun with that, everything you said here was ridiculously simple-minded and pathetically easy to pull apart to reveal the willful ignorance behind it.

But you are an unscientific pretend authority. What you have to say is irrelevant to everybody but your delusions.

This paper serves to highlight the fact that what is actually observable is just variation and adaptation.

Nope, you lie and bull, as an unscientific and pretend authority. When you know nothing about the subject.

As I’ve stated before, you and I view DNA differently [unscientifically and irrantionally].

Fixed that for you. Your OPINION is irrelevant, the data trumps it every time.

You think [know] DNA started from essentially nothing, and developed by way of random events into something extremely complicated

Fixed another lie for you.

If your scenario pleases you, then join the chorus and celebrate that E Coli has regained the ability to eat citrate after 31,000 generations.

The science is right, you are wrong, and your creator is imaginary. You haven’t shown otherwise. Still lying and bullshitting about it and your book of mythology fiction. Neither of which there is any evidence for.

Ah. Other people had said that about you, but I hadn’t seen where you’d actually come out and said that. Quite possible I just missed it, though, so no harm, no foul.

I’d like to get some things hammered about your model, then, if I can, such as:
Is your creator’s mind more complex than a strand of DNA?
Does your argument for creationism hinge on the idea that DNA is too complex to have formed on its own?
If the answers to both of the above are yes, what created the mind of your creator?

As I’ve stated before, you and I view DNA differently. I think it originated perfect and generally, is slowly degenerating.

I don’t understand – it originated as perfect what? Degenerating from what?
Were rabbits (for example) more ‘rabbit-like’ 100 years ago, or are rabbits just degenerate forms of… I dunno, something else?

I recognize that mutations, when they have an observable effect, are often harmful. I think DNA has an enormous capacity for variation and adaptation, which means that some events that are called mutations, are not accidental at all.

Ah.
What makes these non-accidental changes?
What method or force is employed?
What would be the best way to observe this occurring?
Can these non-accidental changes be forced by environmental factors?

You think DNA started from essentially nothing, and developed by way of random events into something extremely complicated.

*sigh*

No.
If you aren’t going to listen when repeatedly corrected on this one simple, basic, elementary, easy-to-comprehend point, please just say “My mind is closed – I’m not listening to you” and I’ll stop wasting both of our time here.
Can you at least try to be honest enough this once to either actually repeat what I’ve been saying accurately, or just admit you’re not reading it?
Is that really so terribly hard for you?

You view all mutations as errors that might have occasionally have a neutral or beneficial result.

No.
I view them as errors that almost always have a neutral effect, that often have harmful effects, and occasionally have beneficial effects.
It may be a small thing, but the fact that you keep getting things wrong that you have been repeatedly corrected on should tell you if you are any good at actually learning about the topic at hand.
(Hint: no, you’re not.)

And you believe that countless numbers of these accumulating errors have resulted in every last developmental detail, of every single bio-feature, in every single extinct and extant plant and animal species.

Yes.

If your scenario pleases you, then join the chorus and celebrate that E Coli has regained the ability to eat citrate after 31,000 generations.

May I ask: did your ‘creator’ suddenly decide that bacteria should get good at digesting citrate coincidentally when they were placed in a citrate-rich environment?
What do you think your creator would suddenly decide about bacteria if they were placed an a different environment?

Yeah, I don’t quite get that either. That came as a peculiar announcement in the paragraph CR posted….”Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution.”

”However, that speciation occurs is well established.”

I completely agree. The evidence is overwhelming for that. Species can develop novel traits, as in the case of ancestral brown bears making a stunning transition into polar bears. What is not established, actually established at all, are two other ideas.

The first is that such remarkable adaptations are the result of random DNA replication errors.

The second is about the assumption that adaptation can render one class of animal into another. There is nothing well established about that. It is just a belief, based on nothing more substantive than buzz phrases such as “mammal-like reptile”. I recognize that these stimulate enormous faith in the assumption, but they are not evidence of anything.

===

“I’d like to get some things hammered about your model, then, if I can, such as:

Is your creator’s mind more complex than a strand of DNA?”

Of course.

”Does your argument for creationism hinge on the idea that DNA is too complex to have formed on its own?”

No, that is a secondary issue.

”If the answers to both of the above are yes, what created the mind of your creator?”

ha ha…so those two questions lead up to this one? Stop and consider that your intellect is severely limited when it comes to inquiries about infinity or infinite Beings. You shouldn’t have much trouble accepting that from your own perspective, since you are working with mental faculties that are the result of trillions of errors that occurred between rocks and you.
.
“You think DNA started from essentially nothing, and developed by way of random events into something extremely complicated.

*sigh*

No.”

No? Well, if “no”, then you and Nerd need to get together and sort this out. He corrected my statement to read as follows:

“You think [know] DNA started from essentially nothing, and developed by way of random events into something extremely complicated”

He obviously knows this, and assumes that you do know this as well. Now, don’t start a catfight, but you need to decide what the terms of your paradigm are, or are not.

So, your argument doesn’t hinge on it, but you still believe DNA is too complex to occur on its own? Yes?

ha ha…so those two questions lead up to this one? Stop and consider that your intellect is severely limited when it comes to inquiries about infinity or infinite Beings. You shouldn’t have much trouble accepting that from your own perspective, since you are working with mental faculties that are the result of trillions of errors that occurred between rocks and you.

I’m sorry, was that a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?

Also, this is why I keep asking for your model – this is the first time you’re told me you believe your creator to be an ‘infinite Being’ (whatever exactly that means).
If you want to snark at me for not knowing what you believe, it would be a lot more effective if you had, yanno, actually told me. Having to tease it out of you is excessively tedious.

No? Well, if “no”, then you and Nerd need to get together and sort this out.

I’ll take it up with Nerd if I ever find myself arguing this issue with Nerd.

As it is, I’m arguing it with you, and you’re startlingly short on answers. Possibly because, when pressed, you tend to do things like trying to play people off against one another rather than just answering the question.

But let’s try again… you’ve been corrected on the point that all the variation of life is not simply and solely the result of random mutation. You’ve been told what else happens. Do you remember what that was, or do you need to be told yet again?
(If you do remember, you’re being dishonest every time you omit it. If you don’t, please consider what that says about your capacity for learning about this topic.)

. . .

Also, should I assume you missed this bit:

May I ask: did your ‘creator’ suddenly decide that bacteria should get good at digesting citrate coincidentally when they were placed in a citrate-rich environment?
What do you think your creator would suddenly decide about bacteria if they were placed an a different environment?

…or should I just assume that question was yet another one you’re not interested in answering?

I don’t have a good answer for that. I don’t really enjoy the petty responses and monotonous insults.

Just as we don’t enjoy the monotonous idiocy and unscientific fuckwittery you pretend is argument. You have nothing but fallaciousl presupposition, in that you believe in an imaginary creator and mythical/fictional holy book being inerrant. Without any solid and conclusive evidence for either presupposition. Making you nothing but a OPINIONATED LIAR AND BULLSHITTER.

You have refuted no science, as you fuckwitted and presuppositional OPINION is not science. Only more science refutes science. You have convinced nobody your idiotic idea as it lacks scientific evidence. You have nothing to offer for a solid scientific argument. You lost before you even started due to your fallacious presuppositions.

Lying yet again. DNA came from chemical precursors, not “nothing”. This has been explicitly explained to the texpip.

The pathetic liar repeats yet another one of its reusable lies.

*yawn*

and developed by way of random events into something extremely complicated.

Back to the irrelevant “extreme complexity” schtick. The hamster wheel goes round again. Evolutionary theory explains all levels of complexity from low to high.

And yet the texpip’s “alternative” cannot explain complexity AT ALL and can only presuppose it, but the texpip has no problem with this.

Pathetic hypocrisy all the way down.

You view all mutations as errors

More deliberate misuse of teleological metaphor, and yet again deliberately mischaracterizing what evolutionary actually says.

that might have occasionally have a neutral or beneficial result.

More deliberate lies. Neutral mutations are the usual result, not “occasional”. This has already been explained to the texpip, but as usual, the pathetic liar continues to lie.

If your scenario pleases you, then join the chorus and celebrate that E Coli has regained the ability to eat citrate after 31,000 generations.

And even here the texpip cannot resist lying.

Regained after 31,000 generations? No, the original E. coli strain never had the ability to metabolize citrate aerobically.

This inability is part of the very definition of E. coli.

This is a NEW ability, evolved through GAIN OF FUNCTION mutations.

Deliberately trying to sneak in “regained” is simply another dishonest trick to try to deflect and distract from the observed reality that something has happened in this experiment that the texpip’s useless “alternative” to evolutionary theory flat out states CANNOT OCCUR.

What would be interesting is if PZ had txpiper go to automoderation, which would only be posted if he presented the conclusive physical for his imaginary deity and babble not being a book of mythlogy/fiction.

You know the level of evidence intelligent lurkers, physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Funny how no godbot has ever, ever, posted the equivalent of the coordinates of the eternally burning bush, which would fulfill my requirements…almost like they tacitly are acknowledging they know they lie and bullshit like txpiper does on those subjects…

I completely agree. The evidence is overwhelming for that. Species can develop novel traits, as in the case of ancestral brown bears making a stunning transition into polar bears.

Another flat out lie by the pitiful liar texpip.

Let us see again what the texpip said about its “alternative” model to evolution:

The model I accept is reversed, beginning complex and in a state of degeneration, acknowledging the actual nature of mutations. Variation can occur as a loss of information

A DEGENERATIVE model where variation occurs as a LOSS OF INFORMATION does not allow for novel traits.

But when ample evidence is provided that demonstrates that novel traits do in fact arise, FALSIFYING the texpip’s model, the texpip pretends that it had always accepted that novel traits can appear, when it clearly did not.

And at risk of oversimplifying the complexity of the species concept (sorry, David M), I will point out again, that the inability to aerobically metabolize citrate is one of the features used by microbiologists to define the E. coli species, as much as species as a concept can even apply to prokaryotes.

If the Ara 3 citrate metabolizing strain in Lenksi’s experiment had been discovered, in the wild, there is every possibility that, because it CAN metabolize citrate aerobically, it would not be classified as E. coli, and be given a different species name.

The only reason we still call it E. coli is because we know it used to be E. coli, because we did the experiment and watched it change.

Oh, and for their mythical/fictional babble, presuppositionalists like txpiper need to show the conclusive physical data for the all-continent-one-time-radiometrically-dated-flood-discontinuity-that-extinguished-all-life-on-Earth-except-for-the-ark. Funny how they try to hand-wave a myriad of local floods at various times including hundreds of millions of years prior to the existence of their mythical/fictional babble in “the data”, showing prima facie evidence that they lie and bullshit for their fallacious presuppositions. Even the creationist geologists of old realized that the flood was myth. There was no evidence for it….

So when I say txpiper is missing some significant evidence for his fuckwitted idea, which relies upon a creator/inerrant babble, it is the TRUTH.

Note that the CitT citrate transporter works by exchanging citrate with succinate.

And as a “solution” to the problem of metabolizing citrate for food, that is very kludgey.

Firstly, citrate and succinate are both part of the TCA cycle, which is used to metabolize citrate. This means you need succinate to properly metabolize citrate. Giving up succinate to get citrate thus sabotages the efficiency of citrate metabolism! It would be like, if you needed extra tires to build a car, you went and got them by trading steering wheels for them.

Secondly, succinate is itself a potential nutrient. Thus to get food in citrate form, the bacteria gives up food in succinate form. At the barest minimum, exchanging 6C citrate for 4C succinate, though it gives you a 2C surplus, is 66% inefficient.

It’s not like one HAS to exchange citrate for succinate. There’s no law of physics or chemistry that dictates that your transporter for citrate HAS to pump out succinate to bring in citrate. There are so many other ways of getting nutrients inside a cell, many of which E. coli already uses for other nutrients.

Why would an infinite intelligent designer, if tasked with the problem of developing citrate metabolism for E. coli, or any bacteria, start here, with a citrate/succinate exchanger? It is inexplicable.

But it is exactly the kind of contingency-dependent kludge that one would expect from a process of natural selection of random mutations.

What would be interesting is if PZ had txpiper go to automoderation, which would only be posted if he presented the conclusive physical for his imaginary deity and babble not being a book of mythlogy/fiction.

Xe actually answered that once. Sort of. I asked hir to show evidence for the existence of any gods (multiple times) and xe stated that xe had the evidence, but it was not evidence that everyone would recognize or accept (these are not the exact words (I suck at finding old comments on Pharyngula) but this is the way I understood hir almost answer. Basically, we are too stupid/blind/ignorant/full of ourselves to see hir version of reality.

Which more or less demonstrates the same process, but with pretty pictures, and instead of using complicated ideas concerning biological information in general, it focuses on just one specific example of increasing biological information.

Notice how BOTH examples produce, spontaneously, a pattern of punctuated equilibria?

Xe actually answered that once. Sort of. I asked hir to show evidence for the existence of any gods (multiple times) and xe stated that xe had the evidence, but it was not evidence that everyone would recognize or accept

Reminds me of another godbot, initials RK, here proselytizing. It admitted we had to be ready to accept its bullshit before we could accept the evidence for its imaginary deity. Txpiper is in the same boat. It knows it has no evidence a gnu atheist/rational skeptic/scientist will except, but it can’t/won’t shut the fuck up. Dishonesty all way down.

Xe actually answered that once. Sort of. I asked hir to show evidence for the existence of any gods (multiple times) and xe stated that xe had the evidence, but it was not evidence that everyone would recognize or accept

Then Jesus failed in the most important task of being able to convince an outsider to accept salvation.

If your scenario pleases you, then join the chorus and celebrate that E Coli has regained the ability to eat citrate after 31,000 generations.

It is almost a trope that liars inevitably get caught when they trip themselves up trying to keep all their lies consistent (honest people not having this problem since reality automatically provides that service for them).

I’ve already pointed out the dishonesty of the texpip trying sneak in “regained” here in its desperate and pathetic attempts to avoid facing the fact that the Lenski experiment completely blows its entire argument to smithereens.

As in the texpip’s degenerative “model” mutations are solely destructive and thus cannot be the source of new information, the texpip has no choice but to insist, contrary to all known evidence, that the E. coli merely “regained” the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate (presumably from some perfect pre-fall state).

The implication being of course that the originally created “perfect” E. coli could metabolize citrate, only to lose that ability to some destructive loss-of-ability mutation somewhere down the road (Eve having cursed even the poor bacteria when she crunched the apple).

But it seems that the texpip failed to notice that a “regain” of function is STILL A GAIN of function. Even IF the evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism was the restoration of a previously lost capability (again contrary to all known evidence), said restoration is STILL a gain of biological information, resulting from mutations and natural selection.

Information lost to degenerative change is still lost, destroyed. A restoration of that information later is still a gain, a regeneration.

But the texpip’s “model” is degenerative. Mutations in it are only destructive. Whatever is lost from the pristine created state CANNOT BE REGAINED.

The texpip in its attempt to dishonestly avoid confronting reality nevertheless ends up admitting that mutations and selection have produced a GAIN in biological information.

Notice also that this “regained” snark also betrays that the texpip (as usual) has refused to read the provided link, in its typical dishonest fashion.

As the link describes precisely HOW the ability was gained, and it was through duplication mutations. The copied gene was moved to a new location where it had never existed before, falling under the control of a different regulatory element it had never been associated with before, and then duplicated repeatedly along with the new regulatory element to magnify the effect.

Only a liar with an agenda, or an ignorant idiot who didn’t read the link, can look at this mechanism and call it a “regain” of anything.

This is a good example of someone being unhappy [stupid like a creationist] because mutations and helpful fairies [like my imaginary deity] were left out of the picture, and formulating “another” idea to fit the facts into evolutionary theory.

Fixed that for you, since your inane analysis was failing of course. The facts are evolution are not up for debate, and any mechanism must use naturalistic causes. Your deity must be shown to exist through other means, or your idea is just so much bullshit, like all your posts.

This was in no way scientific research. [This from an unscientific overly opinionated unathoritative liar and bullshitter.] This was cooked [citation needed, or you are a liar and bullshitter]. Schneider went into this believing his premise and came out of it self-reassured [creationist, where is your deity? he is much more realistic than you and your idiotic unscientific opinions, like this one. You are accusing Schneider of behaving like a creationist, presupposing the answer, typical of hypocrite, liar, and bullshitter you are].

Fixed that for you again. No citation so *POOF*, your analysis is dismissed as total and utter fuckwittery. The paper stands until refuted scientifically from the peer reviewed scientific literature. Which means it will never be refuted by you, as you are afraid to publish your OPINIONs.

Are you going places and developing new features?

Nope unscientific fuckwit, but your children are evolving more than you because of those mutations. And they may grow up, gain a moral conscious, which is evolving in a way, and become democrats. Or, loose all belief in imaginary things and become atheists, also evolving in a way.

Ignore #72, apparently I was responding to #500 by txpiper due to computer/internet problems at work, who is MIA at the moment. Lenski decisively proved him wrong, as the citrate uptake occurred exactly as we have been telling him evolution works for a while, while he can’t show his imaginary creator did anything at all.

I don’t have a good answer for that. I don’t really enjoy the petty responses and monotonous insults. I guess because I like people, perhaps to a fault

Txpip likes people so much that he feels compelled to torture them with execrable imitations of reasoning and rhetoric. I would comment on the senselessness of this, but it makes roughly as much sense as everything else he has posted here.

Hey Txpip, if you are feeling philanthropic, do everyone here a favor, and go smoke an exhaust pipe.

Chapter Two (around generation 31,500): The bacteria accidentally rewire their genome, so that a new copy of citT switches on in the presence of oxygen.

A NEW gene is created by DUPLICATION. This is EXACTLY how we have told the texpip how new genes arise, over and over again.

The pathetic liar lies again.

Not much different than humans having their lactase gene switch broken.

In these E. coli, there is NO BROKEN SWITCH.

As one cell in Lenski’s flask divided, it duplicated its DNA with one fateful mistake. It accidentally copied the citT twice. The new copy ended up near a different genetic switch–a switch that turns on neighboring genes in the presence of oxygen, not the absence.

Instead the COPIED (new genetic information ADDED to the genome) gene is inserted by RANDOM mutation beside a DIFFERENT switch.

Every mutation so far characterized has been a GAIN of information, and a GAIN of function.

The texpip, dishonest liar that it is, seems to want to demand that we show it an example of a completely new gene poofing into existence from a mutation.

Except of course, this is precisely what evolutionary theory says DOES NOT HAPPEN. The first simple genes were created via abiogenesis, and all subsequent genes arise from a stepwise process of modifications and duplications of pre-existing genetic information.

A new gene poofing into existence out of nothing prior would in fact be evidence in favor of creationism.

Isn’t it typical of the pathetic dishonest liar that is the texpip that it disparages evolutionary theory and demands of it a kind of proof that the theory itself says should not happen? And when we show the texpip EXACTLY WHAT THE THEORY PREDICTS SHOULD HAPPEN, happening and PRODUCING NEW GENETIC INFORMATION AND NEW FUNCTIONALITY, it just ignores it and dismisses it.

Two mutations or SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism) have been associated to lactase expression. It was found that C−13910 (C at position -13910 upstream of the gene LCT) and G−22018 (G at position -22018) are related to lactase non-persistence while the T−13910 and A−22018 are related to lactase persistence.[3] In addition, studies have demonstrated that the lactase gene has a higher expression when T−13910 and A−22018 are present and a lower expression when C−13910 and G−22018 are present.[3] It was also proven that the position -13910 has an enhancer function on the lactase promoter (the promoter facilitates the transcription of the LCT gene). T−13910 is a greater enhancer than C−13910, so it is thought that this mutation is responsible for the differences in lactase expression[7]

Lactase persistence in humans is NOT mediated by a “broken” genetic switch. There are four different switches, two associated with lactase persistence, and two with lactase non-persistence. All four are ENHANCERS, switches that TURN ON GENES.

The mutations that produce lactase persistence are single nucleotide point mutations that CHANGED pre-existing ENHANCES, INCREASING their enhancing function, INCREASING the expression of lactase.

The switches were NOT “broken” by mutation. They were ENHANCED by mutation. These are POSITIVE, GAIN OF FUNCTION mutations.

Naturally the texpip will ignore this and continue to lie about this in the future.

How long before it spins its hamster wheel back to the “broken switch” lie, hmm? Any bets?

Not much different than humans having their lactase gene switch broken.

Why is your OPINION scientific? It isn’t, it is nothing but presuppositional lies and bullshit. Which means *POOF*, dismissed as utter and total fuckwittery. You refuted nothing. You can’t with just OPINION. Scientific evidence, as only more science refutes science, or shut the fuck up. You know that.

There is no scientific evidence you will accept as proving you wrong. Which means you are wrong, as it is based on fallacious presuppositions. The science solidly refutes you as the mechanism is exactly what evolution would predict. And you can’t accept you have lost.

Still no evidence for your imaginary creator. What’s the matter, is it shy, or just a figment of your imagination?????? Inquiring minds want a concrete answer.

The trait demonstrates convergent evolution, with different mutations producing it in different human populations.

A SNP in the gene encoding lactase (LCT) (C/T-13910) is associated with the ability to digest milk as adults (lactase persistence) in Europeans, but the genetic basis of lactase persistence in Africans was previously unknown. We conducted a genotype-phenotype association study in 470 Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese and identified three SNPs (G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907) that are associated with lactase persistence

However, once again demonstrating the texpip’s lies, the newly identified African mutations are ALSO gain of function mutations, and NOT “broken” switches.

derived alleles that significantly enhance transcription from the LCT promoter

They are, like the previously known European alleles, enhancers that actively INCREASE lactase expression.

Notice also, that there are multiple different mutations that can produce the trait. It isn’t a one in a trillion hit-the-jackpot chance for the only possible mutant that works.

The texpip can continue to fap its pathetic lies until its kingdom doesn’t come. Science will march on and leave it sputtering in the dust.

“Notice also, that there are multiple different mutations that can produce the trait.”

No new trait is being produced. The norm is for lactase production to be shut down or diminished when infants are no longer nursing, and don’t need it. The mutations spoil this normal shutdown function, and lactase production persists. That is why they call it Lactase Persistence. Nothing new is involved. Nothing is evolving. No new genes, nothing novel. Just a loss of function.

“It isn’t a one in a trillion hit-the-jackpot chance for the only possible mutant that works.”

In this case, hitting the jackpot just has to make something not work. There are always numerous ways to make complex systems fail.

I haven’t been following the discussion closely enough to argue about this particular assertion, but I want to note that when I brought up nylonase, there most certainly was a new trait. When I brought that up, you refused to acknowledge it, instead launching into an irrelevant discussion of “impressive adaptations” and more arguments from incredulity.

You can put your head in the sand all you want, and argue that evolution is just to bizarre for you to fathom, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is happening. Likewise, you can hand-wring all you want, and you still won’t get a universe you want; the one that cares about you and has a plan for you to live forever. You may as well drop that delusion, and let yourself grow up. If you got over santa clause, you can also get over the idea that you are the center of the universe, and that the most powerful thing in (outside of?) it created several billion light years of space and 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (presently observable ones only) for no other reason than to be your “environment”.

If you can’t do that, then I think you should go away. You have shown numerous times that you are not interested in an honest discussion, and at this point you are just wasting everyone’s time.

When it knows it has no answer, it dishonestly moves the goalposts by redefining the meaning of the word “trait” to a more restrictive and completely invalid definition that it made up out of whole cloth in its dishonest lying cesspool of a brain.

Before there was minimal lactase production in adulthood. After there was high lactase production in adulthood. That IS a new trait.

The mutations spoil this normal shutdown function, and lactase production persists.

No, the links make it quite clear that the mutation works NOT by “spoiling” any normal shutdown, but by adding a NEW upregulation ON TOP OF the still existing “normal” shutdown. (It’s another patchwork kludge, since an intelligent designer WOULD have done this by changing the “normal” shutdown, but of course this system was not designed, it evolved).

Once more the texpip ignores the links given to it, and QUOTED directly for it, and just bald-faced LIES.

Utterly pathetic.

And naturally, the texpip chooses to focus on this and now ignores the NEW TRAIT that evolved in Lenksi’s E. coli, apparently thinking in its pitifully incompetent fashion that this is somehow an easier target.

And notice how, as usual, the liar texpip, having no answer whatsoever for the actual citations and evidence that I presented, ignores all that and tries to deflect from its utter failure to answer those points by attempting to take issue (and failing pathetically) with a MINOR point I tacked on at the very end of my post.

Once more repeating its usual pattern of desperately trying to avoid having to directly answer the primary literature.

Meanwhile, the texpip’s “alternative” model cannot explain the smallest detail about how ANY trait arose. All it does is presuppose their appearance.

It cannot even provide a hypothetical description, even in the broadest terms, of HOW an intelligent designer actually went about designer and producing even the simplest trait, which is the MINIMAL requirement of any honest scientific theory of design.

Because it, like the texpip, is a useless dishonest piece of crap whose only purpose is to deceive the gullible.

What I find most interesting is that txpiper seems incapable of giving straight answers about their beliefs to either the technical questions asked (by the people who know what they’re talking about) or the more general, overview-type questions (asked by the people like me).
I wonder if the top-to-bottom weakness of their worldview exposed by this fact is as apparent to them as it is to everyone else here?

At least I know that I don’t know enough about DNA regulatory channels to have an intelligent opinion on them. But I also know that anyone who can do basic math is capable of having an intelligent opinion on the Genesis Flood Story.
If they want one, of course.

”the texpip chooses to focus on this and now ignores the NEW TRAIT that evolved in Lenksi’s E. coli”

Well, that was easy to focus on because it was the last thing you were talking about.

There was still no new trait involved. The mammal package comes with lactase genes that produce an enzyme so infants can process the food that mammal mothers make. The story of that ability being extended in humans is as old as recorded history.

I have to suppose that in your mind, this happens as the result of a random mutation occurring in a human who grows up and somehow discovers that they can consume the milk of domesticated animals and not get sick? That’s odd in itself because the mutant would probably not be consuming something that they would expect to make them ill. That aside, assuming this individual has children, the kids inherit this unique ability, and eventually it spreads throughout a regional population? The selection deal gets confusing because until they are weaned, all the kids can consume milk. I don’t really see a clear competitive or reproductive advantage.

Do you think this is what happened every time humans got involved with herd animals? It seems a little too coincidental to me to be the result of a random error. But then I feel the same way about what happens with caves species. It doesn’t look accidental at all.

I’m still reading about E coli and Lenski. More about that when I have time.

So you claim without evidence, which means *POOF*, dismissed as fuckwittery. Which is all you have. Evidenceless claims, starting with your imaginary creator. Which doesn’t exist without evidence for it. Evidence you never, ever, show.

And it was a new trait, the ability to transport citrate under conditions it could not 33,000 generations and several mutations ago. You just can’t admit you are defeated, nothing but an irrational deslusional loser, who played a bad hand and always lost. You were never, ever, in the game, as your AUTHORITY doesn’t exist, just like your imaginary creator doesn’t exist.

More [lies and bullshit] about that when I have time.

Fixed that for you liar and bullshitter for your fallacious presuppositions….

I have to suppose that in your mind, this happens as the result of a random mutation occurring in a human who grows up and somehow discovers that they can consume the milk of domesticated animals and not get sick? That’s odd in itself because the mutant would probably not be consuming something that they would expect to make them ill. That aside, assuming this individual has children, the kids inherit this unique ability, and eventually it spreads throughout a regional population? The selection deal gets confusing because until they are weaned, all the kids can consume milk. I don’t really see a clear competitive or reproductive advantage.

Why do you HAVE to suppose any such thing? Are there voices in your head telling you to assume other people are stupid?

As you point out, children can drink milk. If a child’s mother dies while still nursing, putting the child onto a cow’s milk isn’t that hard to think of, especially if herdsmen have been caring for orphaned calves that way. In another case, a child that could keep nursing from its mother for many years might survive when other children starved (if she went out foraging and ate all the food herself, then nursed when she got back to camp)—that’s a gradual change, not an abrupt event. Put those two together, and you have older children living on cow’s milk while everyone else is going hungry.

You don’t have to make up some weird scenario for the express purpose of saying it is the only possible and stupid way for us idiots to pretend things had to happen. I mean, the herdsmen could have been drinking/eating fermented milk, and one guy got impatient waiting for it to ferment and hit some raw milk—also a gradual possibility (the guy who could beat the other men to the cheese or kumiss would have an advantage.

Seriously, if you’re hungry, you’ll try anything. And logically, sending cows out to eat grass, then getting milk from them is so damned efficient that the surprise is that we aren’t all doing it. (It beats eating them or draining their blood, for ease and speed—if you are really boss, you don’t even need a bucket.)

I have to suppose that in your mind, this happens as the result of a random mutation occurring in a human who grows up and somehow discovers that they can consume the milk of domesticated animals and not get sick?

Once more the liar texpip attempts a dishonest argument that begins with putting words, which it makes up, in someone else’s mouth, creating a pathetically ridiculous strawman that it then attempts to (and hilariously fails) knock down.

That’s odd in itself because the mutant would probably not be consuming something that they would expect to make them ill.

And this, once again, demonstrates that the texpip, dishonest fapwit that it is, STILL hasn’t bothered to read the link.

As the link makes it quite clear that lactase production never disappears in adult humans, ever. The lactase non-persistent phenotype still produces a small amount of lactase into adulthood. And this small amount of lactase means that humans CAN drink milk as adults without getting ill. It is the AMOUNT that makes the difference. I happen to be lactose intolerant, but I can happily and easily drink about 1 and half cups of milk total daily without any problems. If I drink more than that, I run the risk of bloating, abdominal discomfort, and diarrhea.

And note as well that, (which the liar texpip apparently is hoping that people would forget) there is more nutritional value in milk that just lactose. There happens to be proteins and fats, which lactose intolerant people can digest just fine. And there also happens to be water, which lactose intolerant people can absorb just fine, and need.

So if I, as a lactose intolerant person, were ever trapped in a starvation situation where my only source of sustenance is milk, then I would drink it and take my chances.

And this would be the ancestral condition for those humans just starting to have access to milk from domesticated animals. They would ALL be able to drink a small amount of milk into adulthood without ill effects. They would ALL have nutritional benefit from the fat, protein, and water in the milk, but would only get minimal nutrition from the lactose. In a starvation situation if they had nothing other than milk to drink, they could drink it and survive, but would have do endure the side-effects of lactose overload.

And into this ancestral selective scenario the lactose-tolerant mutations arose. And the individuals with this NEW TRAIT* would benefit from getting MORE nutrition from the small amount of milk that they, along with everyone else, would drink routinely. This would give them a small advantage in normal times. And in times of need when everyone was forced to drink more milk, they would find that the side-effects that everyone else suffered, they would not have, and this would amount to a BIG advantage in those circumstances.

Being slightly better nourished in normal circumstances, and much less vulnerable in extreme circumstances, they get an advantage in winning mates and raising children.

And thus the NEW lactose tolerant TRAIT* spreads.

*The NEW TRAIT is lactose tolerance in adulthood, NOT having the lactase enzyme (which is a different and much older trait that dates far, far back, first originating among the prokaryotes. It is ONLY because mammals already had this trait, of being able to manufacture the lactase enzyme, that they were even able to evolve the trait of putting lactose into milk to feed to their young). The liar texpip’s attempt to equate the two is recognized for the puerile intellectual dishonesty that it is.

Do you think this is what happened every time humans got involved with herd animals?

It DIDN’T happen every time humans got involved with herd animals. Some human cultures with herd animals developed the tradition of fermenting the milk before drinking it. This process removed the lactose from the milk. Those human populations didn’t evolve the lactose tolerance trait.

Of course, since the human population is global and continuous (and has been more of less continuous through most of its existence as a species), once the trait arises in one place, it can spread to others.

It seems a little too coincidental to me to be the result of a random error.

That is because it is NOT the result of only a random error. It is the result of random mutation AND natural selection, and there is nothing “random” about natural selection.

Once more the texpip attempts its old, tired lie of mischaracterizing what evolutionary theory actually says by only mentioning the random half of it and ignoring the directional half of it.

That’s odd in itself because the mutant would probably not be consuming something that they would expect to make them ill.

Hey, Tex, I was thinking of you while I was taking a shower.

Actually, I was thinking of more ways in which people might have started drinking milk. I’m just going to list a few in which adults might be consuming something that they would expect to make them ill.

> A bunch of teenagers want to light farts, so they drink milk. They also get to show how tough they are, in resisting vomiting (and this easily leads to drinking fermented milk to get drunk and vomit).

> A man wants to get out of going on a war party, so he chugs some milk.

> A witch doctor administers milk to make people puke out the evil spirits.

> A tribe tortures prisoners by force-feeding them milk. One tough guy slugs down all the milk, smiles and asks for more. The tribe, impressed, not only turns him loose, but gives him all the women he can get pregnant.

Incidentally, the making of lactose is ALSO a trait that has nothing to do with mammals, but is instead an ancient trait developed by prokaryotes.

Modifying certain sweat glands to add lactose, along with proteins and fats, to the secreted liquid (which previously already contained some fats, sugars, and proteins), and feeding that liquid to their young, is the trait that mammals evolved.

Given how LONG ago the citation was presented to the texpip, and how the liar had PLENTY of time already to read and respond, and how afterwards it instead bounced pathetically from evasive subject to evasive subject, this is highly unlikely and is most probably just another pathetic lie.

More about that when I have time.

If the texpip intends to just lie about it again, like everything else it has barfed up so far, then the texpip shouldn’t bother.

The story of that ability being extended in humans is as old as recorded history.

Since human history is LONGER than recorded history (even in the texpip’s useless “alternative” to evolution theory), the texpip here has just admitted that humans have CHANGED since they first appeared on earth, and had an ability EXTENDED, ie GAINED, at a moment in time AFTER the creation/fall, after which, according to the texpip’s “model”, the only possible changes are DEGENERATIVE.

I understand that the standard narrative is a satisfactory explanation for most people. To me, it is overstated and assumptive. It doesn’t account for the “trait differences” that would make “progeny…that were better adapted to survive and reproduce”. While natural selection preserves traits, it does not create any, nor is it a “cause of adaptation”. For actual alterations, the whole scenario still depends on random replication errors every minute step of the way.

Uh, yes, and?

Why do you use terms like “overstated” and “assumptive” when 1) you haven’t done the math, 2) you refuse to look at the math other people have done?

Do you feel that the summary you posted adequately explains everything from original gene formation to the transition from prokaryotes to humans?

Depends what you mean by “everything”. It’s very general; at that level of detail, I do think (not “feel”) that it adequately explains everything.

Now, I’m not content with that level of detail. My work is much more detailed, for instance. But that’s beside the point of your question.

Environmental changes just amount to suitable food sources and conditions, or the lack of those.

Wow, are you stupid.

Temperature? Availability of water? Availability of oxygen or whatever you happen to need? Availability of nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, whatnot?

The idea of environmental changes causing selection to shift gears into being directional, is entirely doubtable.

Environmental changes are selection. There are no gears; selection is exactly as directional as the amount of change in the environment.

This, from the “Speciation in the fossil record” paper you linked to, notes that any supposed evolution that might occur, could just be temporal:

Well, duh. If the environment changes back and forth, the direction of selection will change back and forth, and the phenotype of the population will change back and forth. And that’s an observed fact. In wet years, the beak shapes of Darwin finches converge, and in dry years, they diverge.

Now, if wet or dry years become more common… what’s going to happen?

However, these conclusions were controversial. Critics argued that the supposed speciation events were merely short-term ecophenotypic responses to particular environmental stresses;

The trick is, my dear lazy texpip, that you don’t know what “ecophenotypic response” means. It means different development (of an individual) that is triggered by the environment and is not heritable. Dandelions are taller on the plains than in the mountains; being taller means more access to light but also more damage from cold wind. If you take dandelion seeds from a plain and plant them under mountain conditions, you’ll get a low plant, and vice versa.

If you take a European mountain pine and plant it on a plain, you’ll not get a tall tree. You’ll get the exact same creeping shrub that you see in the mountains; that shape is heritable, it’s not an ecophenotypic morph. Sooner or later it will be overgrown and shaded by taller plants, except if you plant it in a garden as an ornamental plant, as some people do. And if you take another species of pine and plant it on a mountain, it’ll grow straight up for as long as it can, and then it’ll die. That’s why European mountain pines predominate above 1000 m.

Now, why the fuck didn’t you try to find out what “ecophenotypic” means?

It appears that stasis is much more ubiquitous than either the specialty selection modes,

Yes, because stable conditions are more common than changing ones.

or the pool of available mutations you often refer to.

You don’t see mutations that are selected against!

Their bearers die out too quickly for you to sample them from the fossil record, or indeed an extant population that isn’t monitored in a lab.

What’s so hard to understand about this?

It therefore seems clear that stasis is common and had not been predicted from modern genetic studies.

Uh, how could changes in an environment be “predicted from modern genetic studies”???

I think that’s actually the point. You just missed it.

Dogs would well illustrate that fact that changes in morphology have nothing to do with speciation.

Define “species”.

Under many definitions, you’re right, and nobody has claimed otherwise. So I don’t see what your point is.

This paper serves to highlight the fact that what is actually observable is just variation and adaptation.

All because you were too lazy to google for “ecophenotypic”. Shame on you.

Ing,

”Then why is Progeria so rare?”

I don’t know,

So Ing wins.

It is hard to observe the effects and not conclude that aging involves intentional self-destruct mechanisms.

Do explain.

I would think that it was not developing though, just being re-expressed.

So you’re either saying it’s ecophenotypic: there’s a switch that switches pigment production ( = the transcription of a couple of genes) on or off, and the environment presses that switch.

Or you’re saying it’s heritable. Well, in that case, a mutation broke some gene in the pigment production cascade, and another mutation repaired it. Descent with heritable modification, twice over.

Which is it?

I think it originated perfect

Perfect for which environment?

E Coli has regained the ability to eat citrate after 31,000 generations

Why “regained”?

Also, E. coli. Species names go in lowercase, italics are strongly recommended, and the period behind the abbreviation is necessary because, IIRC, it’s allowed (well, at least in zoology) to use single letters as genus names.

So I guess you enjoy pretending to be an idiot or something?

He’s not pretending. He really is too stupid to get the idea that he could inform himself about the things he talks about.

And I’ve been trying to give him the idea for years now… still doesn’t seem to work.

The second is about the assumption that adaptation can render one class of animal into another.

Define “class”.

*mwa ha ha ha haaaaah*

“mammal-like reptile”

Heh. Do learn more about those. Much more. B-)

ha ha…so those two questions lead up to this one? Stop and consider that your intellect is severely limited when it comes to inquiries about infinity or infinite Beings. You shouldn’t have much trouble accepting that from your own perspective, since you are working with mental faculties that are the result of trillions of errors that occurred between rocks and you.

Pffft. Trillions aren’t infinity, and mathematicians have juggled with different kinds of infinities for centuries. Don’t be sillier than you already are!

at risk of oversimplifying the complexity of the species concept (sorry, David M)

What I’m always on about is that there’s not 1 species concept, there were 147 as of several years ago, and they have nothing in common except the word “species” – but because they have that in common, the codes of nomenclature don’t distinguish between them, which is quite an annoying situation.

Microbiologists seem to be generally fond of phenetic species concepts, where the diagnosis of a species is used as its definition.

Note that the CitT citrate transporter works by exchanging citrate with succinate.

Oh, wow. I didn’t know that.

No new genes, and no new proteins…just switching food sources.

CitT is new – both the gene and the protein it codes for, obviously.

Oh, you mean that doesn’t count because it evolved from a gene that already existed? But by that criterion, almost no gene is ever new. And if you include genes that evolved from junk DNA that itself evolved from genes, then probably no gene has ever been new since the RNA world.

Not much different than humans having their lactase gene switch broken.

…which is a mutation, not ecophenotypic variation. If you’re lactase-intolerant, drinking milk will only give you diarrhea, it’ll never make you produce lactase again.

I recognize the need for new icons, with the thrill of Tiktaalik having worn off.

:-D :-D :-D

BTW, Neil Shubin presented the pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik at a conference on Thursday. I watched. Saying any more might jeopardize his Nature publication, so I won’t…

Lactase persistence in humans is NOT mediated by a “broken” genetic switch. There are four different switches, two associated with lactase persistence, and two with lactase non-persistence. All four are ENHANCERS, switches that TURN ON GENES.

Oh. I didn’t know that either.

So the one time the texpip learns something from me, that turns out to be wrong…

No new trait is being produced.

The ability to live off milk, as opposed to dying in painful diarrhea, is not a new trait?

What, then, is a new trait?

Please.

Nothing is evolving.

Descent
with
heritable
modification.

Inherited mutations. Evolution.

Before there was minimal lactase production in adulthood. After there was high lactase production in adulthood. That IS a new trait.

And it’s inherited, which means it counts as evolution!

(Just to repeat everything so the texpip might accidentally see one of the occurrences.)

I have to suppose that in your mind, this happens as the result of a random mutation occurring in a human who grows up and somehow discovers that they can consume the milk of domesticated animals and not get sick? That’s odd in itself because the mutant would probably not be consuming something that they would expect to make them ill.

In addition to comment 102, here’s a scenario that has been suggested in the literature (I’m not saying it’s more probable, just that it’s possible):

Imagine a drought among cattle-herders. In their despair, they drink milk, and some stay healthy (while the others get horrible diarrhea, which perhaps even kills them).

Cattle were domesticated, several times independently, thousands of years before lactase persistence evolved. Look it up!

Do you think this is what happened every time humans got involved with herd animals?

Only 3 or 4 times, right, Amphiox?

It doesn’t look accidental at all.

The trick is that intuition isn’t trustworthy. Much of nature is counterintuitive – intuition hasn’t evolved to deal with huge numbers, huge intervals of time, huge speeds, huge masses, and so on.

Are y’all tired of txpiper, yet?

Arguing with him is so easy it’s a welcome distraction!

There happens to be proteins and fats, which lactose intolerant people can digest just fine. And there also happens to be water, which lactose intolerant people can absorb just fine

Unless they get diarrhea, in which case milk actually makes them lose more water than they can gain from it, and prevents them from taking up the proteins and fats.

> A man wants to get out of going on a war party, so he chugs some milk.

Heh. In that case, lactase persistence would actually be detrimental.

See how it depends on the environment?

> A witch doctor administers milk to make people puke out the evil spirits.

> A tribe tortures prisoners by force-feeding them milk. One tough guy slugs down all the milk, smiles and asks for more. The tribe, impressed, not only turns him loose, but gives him all the women he can get pregnant.

Because he’s obviously divine. Mere mortals, as everyone knows, break down under such torture. :-)

(Brewing may not be quite that old, but buildings, towns, domesticated animals, agriculture and most of civilization is 10- to 12-thousand-years-old.)

I remember telling the texpip that the walls of Jericho are older than the universe is according to YEC.

Thanks for the Göbekli Tepe name. I’d heard of it, but forgot the name.

I have been watching The Ascent of Man series http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QetE6WvBFY Jacob Bronowski BBC TV 1973, which offers many scenarios and explanations in a very entertaining form. Jericho is in episode 2.

I wrote something up there about people sending cows out to get grass and convert it to milk, which humans use as food. David M makes me think that the same applies to the water content in milk.

People could use cows and goats as water-collection and -purification devices, in some scenarios. Instance: If you have only a muddy stream at the bottom of a steep canyon, you could let the goats clamber down and drink, then milk them when they got back up, and use that milk as your drinking-water supply—no climbing, and no mud.

And, as David M says, there are cases where adults being able to drink milk might mean that only the milk-drinkers survive, and everyone else dies. Which would spread a mutation through a population rather quickly.

What txpiper seems to forget is that for most animals, and for most people through most of history, survival is quite rare.

For us computer users, right now, survival is a given—I can only think of one child in my extended family that didn’t survive to adulthood. But that is a very recent development—a few hundred years ago, the fricking queen of fricking England was losing half her children—and still fairly local, as when the TV shows starving children in Africa.

And for animals, some breeding pairs produce thousands of young, with only an average of two making it to adulthood. I say an average of two, because the young of other breeding pairs are in competition, and there is only enough food and room for a limited number. And again, we humans aren’t in that situation right now, so it’s hard for people like txpiper to visualize it.

Tex, you are limited in your imagination, and it shows in your arguments here. I’m not saying that the rest of us are just imagining that evolution happens, I am saying that you can’t imagine anything that doesn’t involve you and your life as being important. That’s why you like a religion that says the entire universe was built just for you to have that religion in.

Me, I like knowing that my ancestors have survived through billions of years, and that my contemporaries are figuring out our history. Oh, and we are made of exploded stars, and some of us rode the fire and the thunder up to walk on the moon, and all kinds of other things that people like you want to deny.

Tex, your egotism and your contempt for the rest of humanity are both monumental. It’s kind of sad that you are never going to be right, and that you are never going to prove us wrong.

We really are trying to help you, but after ninety-eleven go-arounds of the same old shit, it’s a lot easier to just call you names.

Tex, you are limited in your imagination, and it shows in your arguments here. I’m not saying that the rest of us are just imagining that evolution happens, I am saying that you can’t imagine anything that doesn’t involve you and your life as being important. That’s why you like a religion that says the entire universe was built just for you to have that religion in.

You are right, as usual. It’s such an old word that I learned a long time ago, that I’d never thought of what it means now that I am allegedly mature.

I do apologize, both for the word and its meaning. I meant no offense to any group of people. I was careless and wrong.

I also apologize to txpiper for name-calling at all. The insulting terms further up the board are directed at matters related to this discussion. What I said was not relevant to matters at hand, and was also baseless, and also improper.

While natural selection preserves traits, it does not create any, nor is it a “cause of adaptation”.

As has already been explained to the texpip ad infinitum, natural selection does more than just “preserve” traits. It EXPANDS them. And the EXPANSION of a trait to fixation is the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of “causing an adaption”.

But here, again, we see the texpip ignoring this and repeating an old lie.

Unless they get diarrhea, in which case milk actually makes them lose more water than they can gain from it, and prevents them from taking up the proteins and fats.

Yep. But of course the amount of diarrhea they get roughly correlates to how much milk/lactose they imbibe (and I think their gut flora also has an effect on this, as what happens is that the lactose, being undigested in the colon, is processed by the gut flora, producing an osmotic imbalance there that sucks water into the colon, resulting in diarrhea. The gaseous byproducts of the gut flora metabolizing lactose is also the main source of the bloating and cramping), and for at least some lactose intolerant people (for me it is just over one cup a day) there is an amount and rate of milk ingestion they can tolerate in which the amount of nutrients and water they get from the milk is greater than what they lose from diarrhea.

You are right, as usual. It’s such an old word that I learned a long time ago, that I’d never thought of what it means now that I am allegedly mature.

Heh. When I first got on to Pharyngula, that was what I thought of the word “twat”. I was rapidly disabused of that notion, and luckily it occurred curtesy of someone else using it, so I was saved from making a fool of myself in public….

Temperature? Availability of water? Availability of oxygen or whatever you happen to need? Availability of nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, whatnot?

Also, the capabilities and numbers and types of predators. The capabilities and numbers and types of prey. The capabilities and numbers and types of parasites and diseases. The capabilities and numbers and types of symbionts and commensals.

Some aspects of the environment also evolve.

Such arms races and other variants of co-evolution are the most directional types of environmental pressures of all and are, as predicted, produce the most spectacular examples of directional evolution.